Written Answers Monday 3 April 2006

Scottish Executive

DNA Samples

Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive what information it has on the limits which are in place to prevent the illegal use of the National DNA Database, particularly in respect of DNA samples collected from Scotland.

Cathy Jamieson: DNA samples collected by the police in Scotland are not held by the National DNA Database. However, it does hold DNA profiles derived from such samples.

  The National DNA Database must comply with the legislation which governs the use of the DNA profiles and samples which it holds.

  The National DNA Database has a series of arrangements to ensure the security of the information which it holds. These include: measures to ensure the physical security of the premises in which the DNA samples are stored and analysed and in which the Database is stored; security clearance of all staff involved in key processes; and the use of the police secure IT network for communication of all information between the Database and the laboratories and the police.

Drug Enforcement Agency

Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what percentage of officers at each rank within (a) each police force and (b) the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency have been from ethnic minority groups in each of the last 10 years.

Cathy Jamieson: The information requested is shown in the following tables.

  Percentage of Officers from Ethnic Minority Groups by Rank

  Central Scotland Police

  

 
 1995-96
 1996-97
 1997-98
 1998-99
 1999-00


 Constable
 0.2%
 0.2%
 0.4%
 0.4%
 0.3%



  

 
 2000-01
 2001-02
 2002-03
 2003-04
 2004-05


 Sergeant
 1.0%
 0.9%
 0.8%
 0.9%
 


 Constable
 0.2%
 
 0.2%
 0.4%
 0.7%



  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary

  

 
 1995-96
 1996-97
 1997-98
 1998-99
 1999-00


 Constable
 
 
 
 
 0.3%



  

 
 2000-01
 2001-02
 2002-03
 2003-04
 2004-05


 Constable
 0.3%
 0.3%
 0.3%
 0.3%
 0.3%



  Fife Constabulary

  

 
 1995-96
 1996-97
 1997-98
 1998-99
 1999-00


 Constable
 0.3%
 0.3%
 0.3%
 0.3%
 0.5%



  

 
 2000-01
 2001-02
 2002-03
 2003-04
 2004-05


 Constable
 0.6%
 0.4%
 0.7%
 0.5%
 0.8%



  Grampian Police

  

 
 1995-96
 1996-97
 1997-98
 1998-99
 1999-00


 Inspector
 1.4%
 1.4%
 1.5%
 1.4%
 1.3%


 Constable
 0.1%
 0.2%
 0.1%
 0.2%
 0.3%



  

 
 2000-01
 2001-02
 2002-03
 2003-04
 2004-05


 Inspector
 1.3%
 
 
 
 


 Constable
 0.3%
 0.5%
 0.4%
 0.3%
 0.5%



  Lothian and Borders Police

  

 
 1995-96
 1996-97
 1997-98
 1998-99
 1999-00


 Inspector
 
 
 
 
 0.8%


 Sergeant
 0.3%
 
 0.3%
 0.3%
 


 Constable
 0.2%
 0.2%
 0.2%
 0.2%
 0.5%



  

 
 2000-01
 2001-02
 2002-03
 2003-04
 2004-05


 Chief/Superintendent
 
 
 
 
 2.6%


 Chief Inspector
 
 2.3%
 2.2%
 2.1%
 


 Inspector
 1.6%
 0.7%
 0.7%
 0.7%
 1.3%


 Sergeant
 
 0.3%
 0.5%
 1.0%
 1.0%


 Constable
 0.8%
 0.9%
 0.2%
 1.1%
 1.1%



  Northern Constabulary

  

 
 1995-96
 1996-97
 1997-98
 1998-99
 1999-00


 Constable
 
 
 0.2%
 0.2%
 0.2%



  

 
 2000-01
 2001-02
 2002-03
 2003-04
 2004-05


 Constable
 0.6%
 0.4%
 0.4%
 0.4%
 0.4%



  Strathclyde Police

  

 
 1995-96
 1996-97
 1997-98
 1998-99
 1999-00


 Sergeant
 0.1%
 0.1%
 0.1%
 0.1%
 0.2%


 Constable
 0.5%
 0.6%
 0.6%
 0.5%
 0.8%



  

 
 2000-01
 2001-02
 2002-03
 2003-04
 2004-05


 Chief Inspector
 
 
 
 1.0%
 


 Inspector
 
 
 
 1.0%
 


 Sergeant
 0.4%
 0.2%
 0.3%
 1.0%
 


 Constable
 0.9%
 0.9%
 0.9%
 2.0%
 0.7%



  Tayside Police

  

 
 1995-96
 1996-97
 1997-98
 1998-99
 1999-00


 Constable
 0.1%
 
 0.3%
 0.3%
 0.3%



  

 
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05


Constable
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.7%
0.5%



  SDEA

  

 
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05


Constable
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%

Justice

Trish Godman (West Renfrewshire) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive how many people convicted in each of the last five years for the illegal trafficking of women into Scotland for forced sexual purposes were foreign nationals and what information it has on whether they will be deported upon the completion of their imprisonment.

Cathy Jamieson: Information on the nationality of offenders is not available from the statistics on convictions held centrally.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to investigate the reports in the press that Federal Bureau of Investigation officials requested that David Grieve not give evidence in defence of Shirley McKie at the trial in which she was acquitted of having committed perjury in 1999 and what the reasons are for its position on the matter.

Colin Boyd QC: There is no basis for me or any other Scottish Minister to instruct an investigation into these reports. The comments in the press attributed to Mr Grieve suggest that he believed there to be a link between the Shirley McKie and Lockerbie prosecutions. There is no such link. SCRO were not involved in the fingerprint evidence in the Lockerbie case. Accordingly no investigation into this matter is required.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Lord Advocate or Minister for Justice had discussed or exchanged correspondence on the Shirley McKie case with the Convener of the Justice 1 Committee prior to that committee’s meeting on 22 February 2006 and, if so, what the subject matter was of these contacts.

Cathy Jamieson: There was no correspondence with Justice 1 Committee about the Shirley McKie case before 22 February 2006. From time to time both the Lord Advocate and I have had informal discussions with the Convenors of both Justice Committees about a range of issues.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will list all the investigations and inquiries that it has initiated since January 1997 in relation to, or arising from, the Shirley McKie case and, for each investigation or inquiry, (a) what the remit was, (b) who carried it out, (c) how long it took, (d) to whom it reported, (e) how much it cost, (f) what conclusions and recommendations it reached and (g) which recommendations have been (i) implemented and (ii) not implemented.

Cathy Jamieson: There have been a number of investigations into the Shirley McKie case.

  The SCRO Executive Committee decided in February 2000 to invite HMIC to bring forward a planned inspection of SCRO. This resulted in the HMIC Primary Inspection of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau which began on 20 March 2000. The Inspection Report was published on 14 September 2000. It contained 25 recommendations and 20 suggestions. The recommendations and suggestions were discharged in the HMIC SCRO Primary Inspection Report 2004 that was published on 17 March 2005.

  In response to the emerging findings of the HMIC Inspection of 2000, on 21 June 2000 ACPOS set up an ACPOS Presidential Review Group (APRG) to coordinate the Scottish Police Service’s response. A Change Management Review Team (CMRT) was appointed to undertake a 90-day scrutiny of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau. Its report was published in October 2000 and contained 87 findings. By 10 March 2006, 82 findings had been discharged and progress was being made on completing the work necessary to discharge the others.

  In June 2000, ACPOS asked senior officers of Tayside police - Deputy Chief Constable Mackay and Chief Superintendent Robertson - to investigate the discrepancy between the findings of the SCRO experts and those of experts who were instructed by ACPOS during their earlier review. The Lord Advocate then instructed the Regional Procurator Fiscal for North Strathclyde to inquire into allegations of criminality, specifically perjury. The inquiry by Tayside officers was then widened to investigate that allegation and was asked to report its findings to the regional procurator fiscal. That inquiry was extended again in September 2000 to cover similar allegations in the Asbury case.

  In October 2000, the Tayside officers submitted their report to ACPOS for its interest and to the Regional Procurator Fiscal for his. They then made further inquiries to assist the Regional Procurator Fiscal's investigation. The Regional Procurator Fiscal submitted his report to the Crown Office in July 2001. The Lord Advocate considered that report, and all of the available evidence and decided that there should be no prosecution.

  In September 2001 Strathclyde Joint Police Board (the employer of the 4 fingerprint officers) established an ad hoc investigation and disciplinary procedure. This work was taken forward under the auspices of an Independent Scrutiny Committee and an investigating o officer was appointed. The chair of the Committee advised the Clerk to the Joint Police Board on 20 March 2002 that the Investigating Officer had concluded that the officers should be returned to their normal duties, and that the Scrutiny Committee endorsed his report.

  My letter of 10 March 2006 to the Convenor of the Justice 1 Committee provides more information about HMIC Primary Inspection 2000 and the CMRT report. This is at:

  http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice1/papers-06/Correspondence_Minister_for_Justice_10_March_2006.pdf.

  It is not be possible to establish the costs of these inquiries.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is legal for officers of the Scottish Criminal Record Office to sign documents on behalf of colleagues and, if so, under what circumstances, what procedures govern when and where this can be done, what checks (a) existed in January 1997 and (b) currently exist for ensuring that such proxy signatures are authorised by the person on whose behalf the signature is being used, whether it is illegal to sign such a document without authorisation and, if so, who has to provide authorisation, whether, if the document relates to a fingerprint, the person signing on behalf of another officer has to check independently the fingerprint identification, how many times such signatures have been used in the SCRO in each month since January 1997 and what audit arrangements (i) existed in January and February 1997 and (ii) currently exist for ensuring that signatures are not provided fraudulently.

Cathy Jamieson: This would depend on the document concerned. It is accepted practice for some documents to be signed on the author’s behalf if that person is not available to sign the document personally. It is made clear when this is the case by indicating that the document is being signed on the author’s behalf. There is no such practice in relation to the identification of fingerprints.

Justice

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23669 by Cathy Jamieson on 13 March 2006, whether, as part of the settlement, Ms McKie accepted that the misidentification had been made in good faith and was not malicious.

Cathy Jamieson: I refer the member to the question S2W-23664 answered on 20 March 2006. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search .

Justice

Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-14222 by Cathy Jamieson on 15 February 2005, how many prosecutions there have been for the supply of alcohol to underage customers in each of the last five years, broken down by (a) police board area, (b) local authority area and (c) parliamentary constituency, showing year-on-year percentage changes.

Cathy Jamieson: The available information is given in the following tables. No breakdown of these figures into parliamentary constituency is available from the data held centrally. The court proceedings statistics for 2004-05 are planned for publication in April 2006.

  Persons Proceeded Against In Scottish Courts For Sale Of Drink To Persons Under 181, 1999-2003

  

 
 Number
 Percentage change on previous year


 Police force area
 1999
 2000
 2001
 2002
 20032
 1999
 2000
 2001
 2002
 20032


 Central 
 -
 4
 2
 3
 1
 -
 na
 -50
 50
 -67


 Dumfries and Galloway
 -
 -
 -
 -
 1
 -100
 -
 -
 -
 na


 Fife 
 1
 2
 2
 -
 3
 -67
 100
 -
 -100
 na


 Grampian 
 5
 4
 3
 4
 2
 -29
 -20
 -25
 33
 -50


 Lothian and Borders 
 3
 4
 6
 9
 3
 -79
 33
 50
 50
 -67


 Northern 
 1
 1
 2
 2
 1
 -67
 -
 100
 -
 -50


 Strathclyde 
 13
 12
 11
 13
 22
 -48
 -8
 -8
 18
 69


 Tayside 
 7
 -
 2
 2
 3
 75
 -100
 na
 -
 50


 Scotland
 30
 27
 28
 33
 36
 -50
 -10
 4
 18
 9



  Persons proceeded against for selling alcohol to persons under 181, by approximate local authority area3 1999-2003

  

 
 Number
 Percentage change on previous year


 Local authority area
 1999
 2000
 2001
 2002
 20032
 1999
 2000
 2001
 2002
 20032


 Aberdeen City 
 2
 3
 -
 3
 4
 na
 50
 -100
 na
 33


 Aberdeenshire 
 4
 4
 1
 2
 -
 -100
 -
 -75
 100
 -100


 Angus 
 2
 -
 1
 -
 2
 na
 -100
 na
 -100
 na


 Argyll and Bute 
 1
 1
 -
 1
 -
 -67
 -
 -100
 na
 -100


 Clackmannanshire 
 -
 4
 -
 -
 -
 -
 na
 -100
 -
 -


 Dumfries and Galloway
 3
 -
 -
 -
 2
 -57
 -100
 -
 -
 na


 Dundee City 
 2
 2
 2
 3
 1
 -33
 -
 -
 50
 -67


 East Ayrshire 
 2
 3
 3
 2
 9
 -33
 50
 -
 -33
 350


 East Dunbartonshire
 -
 -
 1
 -
 -
 -100
 -
 na
 -100
 -


 East Lothian 
 -
 1
 3
 -
 -
 -
 na
 200
 -100
 -


 East Renfrewshire 
 -
 -
 1
 -
 -
 -100
 -
 na
 -100
 -


 Edinburgh, City of 
 1
 2
 3
 6
 4
 -92
 100
 50
 100
 -33


 Eilean Siar 
 -
 -
 -
 -
 -
 -100
 -
 -
 -
 -


 Falkirk 
 2
 2
 3
 4
 4
 -100
 -
 50
 33
 -


 Fife 
 1
 8
 2
 -
 5
 -80
 700
 -75
 -100
 na


 Glasgow City 
 3
 14
 8
 4
 4
 -81
 367
 -43
 -100
 -


 Highland 
 1
 3
 2
 2
 -
 -67
 200
 -33
 -
 -100


 Inverclyde 
 -
 -
 1
 -
 -
 -100
 -
 na
 -100
 -


 Midlothian 
 -
 1
 1
 -
 -
 -100
 na
 -
 -100
 -


 Moray 
 1
 -
 2
 -
 1
 -75
 -100
 na
 -100
 na


 North Ayrshire 
 5
 -
 -
 1
 3
 -44
 -100
 -
 na
 200


 North Lanarkshire 
 -
 -
 -
 -
 -
 -100
 -
 -
 -
 -


 Orkney Islands 
 -
 -
 -
 -
 1
 -
 -
 -
 -
 na


 Perth & Kinross 
 13
 1
 -
 1
 -
 63
 -92
 -100
 na
 -100


 Renfrewshire 
 -
 -
 2
 -
 6
 -100
 -
 na
 -100
 na


 Scottish Borders 
 3
 2
 3
 5
 -
 na
 -33
 50
 67
 -100


 Shetland Islands 
 -
 1
 -
 1
 -
 -
 na
 -100
 na
 -100


 South Ayrshire 
 1
 2
 5
 4
 -
 -67
 100
 150
 -20
 -100


 South Lanarkshire 
 8
 5
 4
 4
 -
 -
 -38
 -20
 -
 -100


 Stirling 
 1
 -
 -
 1
 2
 -100
 -100
 na
 na
 100


 West Dunbartonshire
 2
 2
 -
 -
 2
 -33
 -
 -100
 -
 na


 West Lothian 
 -
 1
 -
 -
 -
 -
 na
 -100
 -
 -


 Scotland
 58
 62
 48
 44
 50
 -53
 7
 -23
 -8
 14



  Notes:

  1. Where main offence.

  2. Includes estimated data.

  3. Incorporates an approximate mapping of sheriff courts into local authority areas. Some sheriff courts will deal with cases from more than one local authority area. Some local authority areas, including East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, Midlothian and North Ayrshire, do not contain a sheriff court.

Lord Advocate

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it was aware of the current Lord Advocate’s party political affiliation when he was appointed Solicitor General in 1999 and, if so, what account was taken of it.

Cathy Jamieson: The Scotland Act 1998 provides at Section 48(1) for the appointment of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General, with the approval of Parliament. Party political affiliation is not identified in the Act as a factor relevant to appointment.

Prison Service

Richard Lochhead (North East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many female remand prisoners have been housed at (a) Craiginches Prison and (b) Cornton Vale Prison in each of the last three years.

Cathy Jamieson: I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

  This information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Prison Service

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it will introduce to reduce the number of violent offences at HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont which was reported in the Sunday Herald on 29 January 2006 as having the highest incidence of violence of all prisons.

Cathy Jamieson: I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

  The Governor initiated an exercise in 2005 to examine trends and behaviours among young offenders and to find ways to prevent or minimise the levels of violence within the prison. Various steps have been taken since then including:

  a zero Tolerance to violence statement;

  the reinvigoration of the current SPS bullying strategy;

  a new intervention programme targeting those involved in violence; and

  the generation of a "continuous improvement" ethos into incident overviews whereby episodes of violence are reviewed with feedback to those involved.

Rendition Flights

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23750 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, why it does not state what the purpose has been of any discussions regarding the matter of US agencies using Scottish airports as refuelling stops for flights allegedly involved in the process of "extraordinary rendition" other than "routine discussions primarily in relation to the answering of parliamentary questions and other enquiries".

Cathy Jamieson: I refer the member to the question S2W-23750 answered on 8 March 2006. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search .

Rendition Flights

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Executive's Cabinet has discussed the issue of US agencies using Scottish airports as refuelling stops for flights allegedly involved in the process of "extraordinary rendition" and, if so, what the substance was of these discussions.

Cathy Jamieson: Information relating to the proceedings of the Scottish Cabinet is considered exempt from disclosure under Sections 29 (a) and (b) and 30(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. This is in line with the principle that it is not in the public interest to disclose the private deliberations by which government reaches a collective view and inhibit the free and frank discussion of policy within government.

Scottish Criminal Record Office

Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the statement contained in the article on pages 38 and 39 of the Sunday Herald of 19 February 2006 that John Rowell OBE, a civil servant of its Justice Department, attended meetings of the Scottish Criminal Record Office executive committee and, in particular, that he attended meetings in the year 2000 is correct, and whether the civil servant concerned reported to, or otherwise advised, the then Minister for Justice, Mr Jim Wallace MSP, in relation to these meetings and, if so, whether the Executive will publish the terms of such advice.

Cathy Jamieson: John Rowell attended meetings of the Scottish Criminal Record Office Executive Committee during 2000 as part of his role as head of Police Division 2. Advice to Ministers from civil servants is not normally published because this could have an adverse effect on the free and frank provision of such advice in the future.

Scottish Criminal Record Office

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many cases there have been where fingerprint evidence prepared or presented by the Scottish Criminal Record Office has been withheld or withdrawn in each of the last 10 years.

Cathy Jamieson: Fingerprint evidence is prepared at the request of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). The decision about the use of this evidence is a matter for COPFS. The Scottish Criminal Record Office know of two cases in the last 10 years where the reliability of the identification was such that the evidence was not used in court.

Scottish Criminal Record Office

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23157 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, whether any of these reviews have been undertaken by peers inside the (a) Aberdeen, (b) Dundee, (c) Edinburgh or (d) Glasgow Fingerprint Bureau.

Cathy Jamieson: It is a matter of public record that some experts in the Aberdeen and Edinburgh fingerprint bureaux have taken a different view on the identification of this print to their colleagues in the Glasgow bureau.

Scottish Criminal Record Office

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23157 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, whether it will list those individuals who have reviewed the material which is the subject of the dispute between the Aberdeen Fingerprint Bureau and the Scottish Criminal Record Office in the last nine years and what the results of these reviews were.

Cathy Jamieson: As I indicated in reply to S2W-23157 answered on 8 March 2006, over the last 9 years the disputed fingerprint mark has been examined by a number of experts who have reached different conclusions on the ownership of the mark. The Scottish Executive does not hold a record of all those experts or of their conclusions.